Easy as One Two Three

The original 1974 version of The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is not a movie that tends to show up on lists of "Best Movies Ever Made" or "Movies You Must See Before You Die" and the like. But it does seem to cast a long shadow over people in the filmmaking business. Over the years, I've seen it pop up again and again in interviews, social media, and more -- with writers, directors, and actors all citing it as an influential movie. I recently decided to check it out.

For those who don't know the movie (or its 1998 TV movie remake, or the 2009 Denzel Washington version), The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is a straightforward story about a small criminal crew that hijacks a New York subway car to ransom its passengers. Why did this one novel by John Godey capture Hollywood enough to spawn three movies? I'm not sure I can say... but it indeed feels like a milestone movie on the way to the modern Hollywood blockbuster.

Though made in 1974, The Taking of Pelham One Two Three isn't at all the "slow burn" that most big movies of the early 70s often were. In fact, it's almost more compact than the modern blockbuster. We pretty much jump right into the hijacking; the movie then does everything and slips out in a rather slim 104 minutes. And no time is spent delving into the private lives or motivations of the perpetrators -- they're all just here to do a job.

Which is not to say there's no characterization in the movie. Indeed, this is surely the main way in which this movie influenced Hollywood. There are dozens of characters in this movie -- and while only a handful are truly central to the plot, they pretty much all "pop." This is a case study for screen writers, and for the actors' adage that "there are no small parts." With a remarkable economy of dialogue and/or behavior, you get a strong sense of personality from multiple criminals, police, hostages, subway workers, and government officials. (Sure, a handful of these depictions center on cliches that read poorly today, but this is nearly 50 years old.)

The cast is stacked for its time. Walter Matthau, Robert Shaw, (major "that guy") Hector Elizondo, Jerry Stiller, and more are all here. Shaw's presence in particular contributes a lot to the sense that this movie helped birth the modern blockbuster; with this and Jaws in the following year, there's a real throughline here. In two otherwise different characters, we see "stoic under pressure," "villainous protagonist," and other action conventions created right before our eyes.

The score by David Shire is really something. Most of the movie actually plays "dry," without music, but when it does enter the scene, it's loud, in your face, and funky. As if fearing that a movie largely confined to one subway car might get dull (even though it is about a hostage situation), the music is over the top and elevates the stakes.

But despite the reasons I recognize that this film could be studied, I'm not as convinced it can be enjoyed. There's really not much meat on the bone when it comes to the plot -- little more than the question of "how will they get away?" Many of the characters, so vividly constructed in a handful of lines, basically just get dropped. It's quite possible that movies made later, with more complex inner workings, have spoiled me on something this simple -- this... well... old. For whatever the reasons, though, I found myself understanding why film enthusiasts think of this movie much more than I found myself actually liking it.

I'd give The Taking of Pelham One Two Three a C. I'm glad I watched it. If you're the sort of person who might ever call movies "cinema," this might be one you want to watch. If you're more an action movie lover looking for throwbacks you might have missed, this feels to me like more of a risk.